S BALASUBRAMANIAN Vs. V GOVINDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order rejecting the application filed under Order XXXVII Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking unconditional leave to defend the suit. Though notice was ordered in the Civil Revision Petition, the respondent has not chosen to appear either in person or through counsel. The name of the respondent is printed in the cause list. Heard Mr. P. Valliappan, learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner herein is the defendant in a suit filed by the respondent in O.S. No. 1425 of 2003 on the file of City Civil Court, Madras seeking for recovery of sum of Rs. 2,34,500/- together with interest on the principal amount of Rs. 1,75,000/-. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/- from the plaintiff on 10.4.2000 and executed a promissory note on the same date promising to repay the said sum together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum on demand. The repeated request and demand made by the plaintiff for repayment of the said sum have not brought any result and consequently, he filed the above said suit for the relief as stated supra under Order XXXVII Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, as a summary suit.

(3.) The petitioner filed an application seeking permission to defend the suit in I.A. No. 10872 of 2003. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, the petitioner contended that the promissory note dated 10.4.2000 is a forged one and he has no connection with the same. One Sivalingam approached the petitioner on 5.1.2000 and informed that a job at I.O.C. can be secured for any person if they are ready to spend a considerable amount. Accordingly, the petitioner recommended his friend by name Nithyanandam to the said Sivalingam and they paid Rs. 25,000/- in cash on 22.3.2000 and for the remaining amount as a surety, the said person obtained signature from the petitioner in the blank stamped papers. When the job was not secured, the petitioner demanded repayment of the said sum and also for return of the signed blank stamped papers. The said Sivalingam did not return those papers and on the other hand, the petitioner received a notice from the respondent herein on 10.1.2003 as if he had borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/- from him. Thus, it is the contention of the petitioner that the said Sivalingam had played some mischief and he misused the blank stamped papers signed by him. He also gave a police complaint on 17.2.2003, which was under investigation. Thus, it is the contention of the petitioner that he never borrowed money and never executed the promissory note in favour of the plaintiff/respondent. It is his categorical case that the said Sivalingam misused the blank stamped papers signed by him.